Wondering about blade geometry

[FarmGyy]

I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to understanding anything about knives other than "Wow, that' puppy's sharp!" But I'm hoping to buy a nice ($300-ish) fixed-blade once this virus thing passes and my company can get back to work, and I don't understand some of the differences between blade shapes and specs.

What I want is a general outdoors-type knife. Something that's good in the woods and around camp, that will work at least passably for gutting a whitetail, rough food prep, and general bushcraft types of purposes (including some light chopping).

The main questions I have are about blade geometry, specifically how the following characteristics affect performance for various tasks:

• How dropped the point is
• Blade-to-handle angle
• Width of blade (edge to spine)
• Thickness of blade.

For reference, I'm not totally settled on going with Bark River, but their Bravo 1.25 and Aurora II, along with the ESEE-5 and Buck Vanguard, are good representatives of the different characteristics I'm trying to weigh against each other.

 

[OrangeBlueOrangeBlue]

The amount of drop probably isn't going to be as important as how fine of tip there is (pointy tip is more useful for delicate cutting, but is more fragile). Blade to handle angle is not really going to change much on camp knives, since the vast majority have straight tangs and handles. You'll start to see the blade canted forward/down more often when you move to larger dedicated choppers and machete-type blades. Edge-to-spine (usually called the blade height, rather than width) and the blade thickness (which would be the blade width), play off each other. Strength of a blade is very closely tied to mass, so a thicker blade with more material will generally be more durable. The tradeoff of a thick blade is that it generally doesn't cut as finely as a narrower blade, and can bind in the material being cut. Blade height can help alleviate this, as a taller blade has more room to taper down to a narrow cutting edge. For example, the Bravo 1.25 is 0.217" thick and 5" long, but the Aurora II is 0.16" thick and 5.5" long. The Aurora II is also not as tall as the Bravo 1.25. The 30% difference in blade thickness is going to be the most obvious difference, and the Bravo will typically be the more durable blade overall. The extra height and higher grind on the Bravo may make up for the extra thickness on some cutting tasks, but the overall thickness at the spine will limit performance on things like food prep (e.g. cracking apples instead of slicing cleanly).

FWIW, I wouldn't use an ESEE-5 or any coated blade to dress game or prep food, given the blade coating that will usually start to come off as you use it for harder work.

 

[hhmoore]

If you're considering the BRK&T Bravo 1.25, do yourself favor and go with the 1.25-LT. The thinner blade will out-perform the original in most tasks... and, lets be realistic, that size knife isn't really a chopper. I had a BRK&T BRAVO 1.25 AND an Esee 5 - I sold both unused.
If you're looking at that size, though; don't forget the Swamp Rat Ratmandu. (You can thank me later)

 

[comis]

How dropped the point is--I don't hunt myself, but I believe one of the purpose of drop point is to assist dressing game. Also drop point obviously will have the tip more closer to the center line of the blade, but the a potential trade off is less belly.

Blade-to-handle angle--As previously posted, you will see angled fixed blade more often for chopping or harvesting. Sometimes maker may angle the blade slightly, so the 'angle of attack' is different and it may make a smaller blade cuts like a bigger blade.

Width of blade (edge to spine)--personally, a really wide blade is harder to 'turn' in carving and feel less agile in hand(think the difference between a meat cleaver vs a chef knife), of course, it's part of the geometry, so how tall/thick/grind all play a part in the final performance of the blade.

Thickness of blade--I personally don't like unnecessarily thick blade. It may affect slicing performance and more weight to carry. For outdoor use, I think 1/8" stock is plenty strong for most use.

Btw, I would humbly suggest not to disregard the less expensive option like Mora, a $15 Robust could do wonder in the woods at just a fraction of the cost.

 

[Smiling]

I just ordered Cold Steel Warcraft Tanto today - full tang fixed blade with tanto tip made out of CPM-3V.

For general purpose outdoors blade I would say:
Kukri
Recon Scout
SRK in 3V

 

[eveled]

There is no knife that fits all of your criteria. I’d recommend a Buck 105 for hunting and food prep, and a Becker Bk7 or Bk9 for your chopping needs.

if it has to be just one knife for all. My pick would be a Buck 124. Or a Becker BK62 Kephart.

 

[REK Knives]

I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to understanding anything about knives other than "Wow, that' puppy's sharp!" But I'm hoping to buy a nice ($300-ish) fixed-blade once this virus thing passes and my company can get back to work, and I don't understand some of the differences between blade shapes and specs.

What I want is a general outdoors-type knife. Something that's good in the woods and around camp, that will work at least passably for gutting a whitetail, rough food prep, and general bushcraft types of purposes (including some light chopping).

The main questions I have are about blade geometry, specifically how the following characteristics affect performance for various tasks:

• How dropped the point is
• Blade-to-handle angle
• Width of blade (edge to spine)
• Thickness of blade.

For reference, I'm not totally settled on going with Bark River, but their Bravo 1.25 and Aurora II, along with the ESEE-5 and Buck Vanguard, are good representatives of the different characteristics I'm trying to weigh against each other.

O OrangeBlueOrangeBlue nailed it in his analysis. What it sounds like you want is a good balance between everything it won't be dedicated for any one task. Everything is a balance and a trade off. Here's a few points of my own:

• How much drop to the point - This partly depends on how much sweep the belly has to the tip (i.e. traditional vs wharncliffe) but this serves to stabilize the tip and provide a more robust tip at the cost of pointiness. Elongated tips are nice and pointy but are weaker.
• Blade-to-handle angle - as stated, the choppers (competition especially) normally have something like an 8° down angle relative to the blade. But you only want to cut light brush so you won't need this feature. Most any knife with good balance and decent heft will chop light brush no problem at all - even a 4" folder.
• Blade width - Wider blades play into allowing the grind to come up higher and can therefore make it slice better while allowing for more rigidity. A wider blade also allows for more mass in the blade when it comes to chopping, but wide blades can't 'steer' cuts as well. But personally, I love a wide blade
• Thickness REALLY does depend on the use. For what you stated I would go .156"-.187" thick ideally. For cutting ability, this is the order of importance from greatest to least... edge angle, thickness BTE, grind type and height, and stock thickness. So the blade thickness is a factor, certainly, but it is one of the last factors in my experience anyway. ymmv.

In that price range I would say to grab one of my fixed blades being released this coming month as it has no coating and is running CPM Cruwear and extremely ergonomic. But I think most of them are already spoken for at this point and it's a little thick for your uses probably. It's a 4.5" blade and for what you want I would say a 4-5" blade would be perfect. The problem is that most production knives are too thick BTE with edge angles much too obtuse in my opinion. Bark river makes some nice knives, I would highly consider them.

 

[afishhunter]

So far as I am aware, there is no "rule" or "law" that says you can not carry more than one knife.
With that in mind, I would second the Mora suggestion. Although I prefer the Classic Number 1. It has over 100 years of use in the woods for everything you mention - except chopping.

Add a sturdy 2 blade slipjoint, such as a Moose or Trapper pattern, or a largish 4 inch plus 3 blade stockman for carving a spoon or making tent stakes, or trap triggers, in your pocket, and a belt axe or hatchet for chopping. You can whittle or carve a wedge for splitting what firewood the belt axe/hatchet can't, or get a froe like Schrade and Buck make, if you really feel the need to baton or chop with a knife.
A cable saw or chain for a chain saw with rings or paracord loops on both ends works quite well for cutting off branches, and they don't take up a lot of space or weigh a lot.

As others have mentioned, there is no such thing as a "one does everything" knife.
Heck, for that matter, no one blade profile/shape is "ideal" for every task.

A (true) Wharncliffe, Sheepsfoot, and Coping blade with a plumb line straight cutting edge, for example, suck at cleaning/gutting critters, but excel when you need a straight cut in leather, or rubber, or are cutting rope/cord, for example.

For skinning, a drop point, spear point, or a Spey blade are a good choice, since they are less likely to hole the hide, and the internal parts you really don't want to cut open for a number of reasons.
A clip point is also good for skinning, albeit with a slightly greater risk of punching a hole in the hide and the parts inside you don't want to cut.

For skinning, I've found anything much over 4.5 inches to be too long, not maneuverable, and bulky. I've found 3.5 to 4.5 inch plenty long for skinning big game critters.
Just like when fishing, I never needed a fillet knife over 6 inches, since I didn't do any offshore fishing.

 

[FarmGyy]

Thanks for the info everyone. I'm sure this is basic knowledge to most guys here, but as I said, I'm just getting started.

If you're considering the BRK&T Bravo 1.25, do yourself favor and go with the 1.25-LT.

That's actually the one I had in mind -- forgot to include the LT designation. The original seems like it would be an awfully thick slab of steel!

[T]hat size knife isn't really a chopper.

I'm sure it's not. I just want something that will do a decent job of trimming twigs, etc.

If you're looking at that size, though; don't forget the Swamp Rat Ratmandu. (You can thank me later)

Nice looking knife! Not a huge fan of choils. But it sure looks like a worker!

How dropped the point is--I don't hunt myself, but I believe one of the purpose of drop point is to assist dressing game. Also drop point obviously will have the tip more closer to the center line of the blade, but the a potential trade off is less belly.

I understand what the belly is, but I'm not sure what it does for me. Just thinking about skinning a deer, it seems like I use the belly more than other parts of the blade. So am I correct in assuming it's the part of the blade most used for slicing?

Btw, I would humbly suggest not to disregard the less expensive option like Mora, a $15 Robust could do wonder in the woods at just a fraction of the cost.

I've got two Mora knives; a Companion and the Robust. They were my first glimpse of what a truly sharp blade can actually do, and I use them both regularly. But they're lighter and smaller than I'd like, I don't care for the Scandinavian grind, and most of all I really want a quality knife (or two) that my kids can watch me use for the rest of my life and pass on to them when I'm gone. And although a Mora may have endless utility, it doesn't exactly scream "heirloom."

A clip point is also good for skinning, albeit with a slightly greater risk of punching a hole in the hide and the parts inside you don't want to cut.

Been there, done that, had to throw away the T-shirt. Only way I'd use a clip point for processing game is if I really had to!

 

[Eli Chaps]

This is of course my opinion...

I'd say let's back up and slow down. As has been said, with any tool, the more you try to get that tool to perform multiple tasks, the more compromises there will be.

Forget wood chopping. That's better served by tools that are not suited for game processing and general camp tasks. Get a hatchet and call it a day on that front.

Clip points are alright for game but as you know you, do need to be careful. Their belly and fine point will serve better at skinning, but again we're talking compromises.

Now, I wouldn't own a Bark River knife if someone gave it to me. That will get some folks' ire up and all the opinions about the man and company might come out but that's how I feel. But beyond that, from just a practical point of view, Bark River knives have convex edges. I will not own a convex edged knife. Any supposed benefit to that geometry is not at all worth the trade off in ease of sharpening for me.

What are general camp tasks? Well, in all my time camping, it usually meant cutting cord, whittling hot dog/marshmallow sticks, chopping veggie for whatever was going on the camp stove, etc. These aren't overly specialized tasks so I would come back to game processing as my priority.

All these things considered, and considering what you were talking about spending (~$300), I'd suggest something like this:

1. Buck Vanguard or 113 Ranger Skinner. Both offer a drop point, preferable for gutting, but ample belly which aids in skinning. They have very good ergos and a steel which is friendly to sharpening. The Cold Steel Pendleton Hunter is another fine choice here. I'm not thrilled with Buck's sheath design for these knives but it's not terrible. You're in under ~$100.

2. Leatherman Skeletool in 420HC. Absolutely fantastic tool with loads of camp site versatility. ~$70.

3. Norton Crystolon JB8 combination stone with red permanent marker and some mineral oil. Probably around ~$50 all done. You have to learn to sharpen you knives. Or find a way to maintain them. This is a great start. Right now, all total we're at ~$230. But, you could even go straight to a KME R.P.S.H. kit and come in at ~$330.

I think this setup will give you far greater service than any single $300 dollar knife. There's a load of substitutions for what I recommended too. Find what you like.

Oh, and if money allows, toss in a SAK Rambler, cus, well, yeah.